The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Addressing Disconnection: Automated Decision-Making, Administrative Law and Regulatory Reform
Abstract
Automation is transforming how government agencies make decisions. This article analyses three distinctive features of automated decision-making that are difficult to reconcile with key doctrines of administrative law developed for a human-centric decision-making context. First, the complex, multi-faceted decision-making requirements arising from statutory interpretation and administrative law principles raise questions about the feasibility of designing automated systems to cohere with these expectations. Secondly, whilst the courts have emphasised a human mental process as a criterion of a valid decision, many automated decisions are made with limited or no human input. Thirdly, the new types of bias associated with opaque automated decision-making are not easily accommodated by the bias rule, or other relevant grounds of judicial review. This article, therefore, argues that doctrinal and regulatory evolution are both needed to address these disconnections and maintain the accountability and contestability of administrative decisions in the digital age.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444816676645 · Cited by 1,836
The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d'Etat
Latour, B. (2009) · Cited by 597
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017) · doi:10.31228/osf.io/97upg · Cited by 524
Surden, H. (2014) · Colorado Law Scholarly Commons (University of Colorado Colorado Springs) · Cited by 166
Will Artificial Intelligence Eat the Law? The Rise of Hybrid Social-Ordering SystemsPreprint
Wu, T. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3492846 · Cited by 87
The Rule of Law on Instagram: An Evaluation of the Moderation of Images Depicting Women’s Bodies
Witt, A., Suzor, N. P., & Huggins, A. (2019) · University of New South Wales law journal · doi:10.53637/ipmc9544 · Cited by 65
Self-citation‘Australian Exceptionalism’ in Judicial Review
Taggart, M. (2008) · Federal Law Review · doi:10.1177/0067205x0803600101 · Cited by 40
Machine Learning, Automated Suspicion Algorithms, and the Fourth Amendment
Rich, M. (2015) · Penn Carey Law Legal Scholarship Repository (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 34
Brownsword, R. (2018) · Indian Journal of Law and Technology · doi:10.55496/oyvv9809 · Cited by 11
The Making of Australian Administrative Law
Cane, P. (2003) · ANU Open Research (Australian National University) · Cited by 4
Cited by
Research on digital discretion—The subjectification of street‐level work in public administration
Johansson, J. (2025) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12637 · Cited by 26
Reconciling Administrative Efficiency with Procedural Safeguards in the ADM System
Sharaf Addin, E. (2025) · Bratislava Law Review · doi:10.46282/blr.2025.9.2.1116
“Regrettably, this distance reduces the likelihood of a successful judicial review in the ADM field (Huggins, 2021).”
L'acte administratif algorithmique
Stepanov, A. (2026) · doi:10.70675/adc05be3za62ez4b4fz81e7zabf744e60dbf
Metadata
- Authors
- Huggins, A.
- Venue
- University of New South Wales Law Journal
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0313-0096
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 11
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.